authoritative and false
i can’t make a mathematical proof for it, but i believe that honesty is essential to liberty, and that it’s not coincidence many destructions of liberty depend upon untruth. i also believe that those who would write or speak for liberty cannot rightfully rely upon the slack routinely given normalons; we have a responsibility to not fall back on sophistry and lazy research to spread or argue our view. hence, i hold writers in liberty circles against a higher standard without apology. (i don’t include in “liberty circles” such obviously two-faced and philosophically bankrupt organizations, or their proponents, as the “libertarian party”.)
though i tried to remain truthful when writing for lewrockwell.com, i fell in some part to an apparently common ailment of such sites: omniscient writer. reviewing my old LRC articles a few weeks ago, i noticed the taint of omniscience and stroked ego, despite my conscious tries to keep away from its obvious pull. though i stand by almost everything i wrote, the attitude was off for several articles. i’d like to edit some of them, except they should be there for people to see what i was and where i came from (for those who care — and there are a couple, believe it or not).
my blog entries at LRC, however, fare worse. i almost can’t believe some of the nonsense i wrote about at the LRC blog until lew issued a general prohibition of off-topic posts (one which was not followed by most posters then, and has gotten worse if anything). i cringe even thinking about this one, for example. i thought it was good to keep fresh content at the LRC blog (which sometimes went a day or even two without a post). i was wrong. seeing recent domination of that blog (and others) by single writers helps me realize that it’s preferable to give it a rest if worthwhile and truthful material isn’t bubbling over.
the ego involved in publishing is almost physical. it’s bad enough at this site that barely anybody visits except via search engine. however, i’m not muddying the waters of other interests here by making it an undesirable destination.
some writers at prominent liberty sites feed the personal flames of one-to-many rather than fight them — or they are just confidently wrong by disposition. the refutation of some of their output could be a permanent occupation. here are some recent examples that contain enough baloney (usually in the direction of the writer’s bias) that they would have been better unpublished, except as they expose well the factual/logical problems of the writers:
Condoleezza Rice: Ignoramus or Solipsist?
Is Wal-Mart a Business or a Cult?
to the writers of these disasters, i say that ends don’t justify means when the means violate fundamental claims. bogart the sloppy crap. sometimes it’s better to not hit “publish”, especially when writing for a group site or blog. triviality is forgivable; nonsense isn’t, says i.
July 28th, 2005 at 11:01
It is imperative, as is often said, to “speak truth to power”. Many power relations are maintained by false assumptions and frames, and they are rendered less effective if they are revealed and discussed honestly.
I visit this blog every day, sometimes more than once, and I think you should write about anything you please.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:06
thanks. i visited your blog just now and enjoyed it.
BTW, you wrote, “[...] I often find that I am stating some hideously obvious point that a more well read libertarian would respond to with a resounding ‘Duh!’”
nope. i hope you don’t lose your clear description of exactly what the state is doing. i encourage you to continue to speak in such plain language that avoids libertarian buzzwords. i find your writing similar to that of mary ruwart, a woman i often wish i could emulate more easily.